St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1887-05-12


people honestly desire that other bust
ness industries be brought into this
place organized effort must be made to
bring it about.
SUPREME COURT.
The May term of the supreme court
began Tuesday with Judges Royce,
Taft, Rowell and Walker. The. case
that was argued Tuesday was that of
the Conn. & Passumpsic r. r. Co., VS.
Town of st. JoInsbury. This is the
Eastern avenue extension case. About
three years ago the selectmen extend
ed Eastern avenue across petitioners
line of road at grade. The railroad
company brought petition into coun-
seesrt and the court established the
highway according to report of COM
missioners sent out by them. The
railroad took the case to the supreme
court which decided that highway
could not be laid across an existing
railroad at grade and remanded the
case to county court to he further pro-
ceeded with. Subsequent to that de-
cision the legislature passed law au-
thorizing highways to be laid at grade
across existing railroads. At the De-
cember term of the county court the
railroad company claimed that the law
did not apply to this case, but only
H-A MI
the law applied to this case and APP
pointed commissioners to report facts.
The railroad took exceptions and the
case was argued Tuesday, Edwards,
Dickerman and Young for the railroad;
Ide & Stafford for the town.
The next case argued was that of
Young VS. Young. This was case in
chancery. In 1866 Obadiah and Pa
melia Young executed deed to Orrin
Young on the condition that he sup
port PAMELA during life. PAMELA
went away in 1884 and demanded that
Orrin support her at one of her daugh-
ters. The question at law is whether
she is entitled to support in any other
place than that mOrtgaged for her sup
port. The decree of Chancellor Ross
at December term 1885, was that she
was entitled to support away and that
PENDANT took exceptions. The case
was argued before the supreme court a
year ago and ordered to be re-argued
at this term. Nichols g. Dunnett fOl
oratrix and Bates & May for defendant
Yesterday the first case was Brock
VS. Bruce. This is the tax case where
Samuel Bruce of Barnet refused to pay
his portion of a tax assessed to pay fol
repairs on school house, which h'
claims the district never voted to rais'
for that purpose and that he was there
fore illegally assessed. The case ha
been twice tried before jury. Firs
Judge Ross gave Bruce a verdict Thu
case went up to the supreme court ant
was sent back for jury to decide. The!
=, went against Bruce and now it come
back to the Supreme court. All thi
stir is over tax of $40. Bates &
May for plaintiff, Ide g. Stafford 70
defendant.
8 Bronson VS. Sulloway came next, TIL
log case where Bronson of Hardwicl
{ sold Sutton standing ties to be cut an
S draw off the land, reserving lien OF
8 the logs. The lien was not recOrde
It and the logs were attached and sol
Il by SullOway as SuttOn's logs. Th
n question is whether Bronson's sale
v Sutton was Il sale of personal prOpert
It so that it needed to be recorded or wa
II an interest i'm real estate. The count
court gave q verdict for defendan
Hathaway & Lamson for plaintiff, Id
g. Stafford for defendant.
a Shanty VS. Langmaid followed. Shan
!, ty sued Langmaid for Il 5000 note Civ
q en- for pension money. Langmal
pleads in offset Judgment against Shan
n ty for another debt. Shanty say
:. when he let Langmaid have the none
Langmaid agreed not to offset but
pay back the money. The question
# whether the right of offset applies no
"a withstanding the agreement. Lamso
u for Shanty, Idle 81 Stafford for defer
IF dant.
A. j. Willard VS. St. j. & L. G.. r.
10 came next. Plaintiff claims pOrtiC
- of land over which the st. j. & l..
Is road is laid, that came into his han'
t. by foreclosure of mortgage. The ca
IS. is somewhat complicated and numb
1r of Interesting law questions have grow
re out of it. Willard for plaintiff al
e. Judge Poland for railroad company.
h. The court will probably be in sessi'
x until Saturday.